WHAT HOLDS THE BODY TOGETHER?

The Vitruvian Man (c. 1485) Accademia, Venice (from here)
The Vitruvian Man (c. 1485) Accademia, Venice (from here)

1 Corinthians 12 is a fascinating chapter in the Bible.  Here the great Apostle Paul describes how God equips us to spread the Gospel, what Christians must do when they come together and work in unity for the cause of Christ.

First the apostle gives us a sampling of the gifts God gives us through the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:7-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

Then using the human body as an analogy, Paul describes our unity in the cause of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.

But what holds the body together? In the 1 Corinthians 13, Paul describes the greatest gift God gives us through the Holy Spirit, the gift of love. Love is what hold people — what bonds people — together in unity.

The Bible has much to say about love. Because it is so beautifully written, 1 Corinthians 13 is perhaps the most well known chapter in the Bible, and this chapter, following 1 Corinthians 12 , speaks of love, the love that holds together the body of Christ.  In this Age of Apostasy however, I fear we need to reflect upon of another passage.

Not enough of us strive to bring up our children in the Christian faith. Not enough Christians work to strengthen each others faith. We do not devote ourselves to the spread of the Gospel. We spend too little time in prayer and in the study of God’s Word. Have we forgotten that God is love, that He demands that we love each other?

1 John 4:7-21 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

God Is Love

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

What hold the body together? Love. For God is love, and His love is the greatest of His gifts to us. Because He loves us, He demands that we love each other for love is also the greatest gift we can give to each other.

WHY IS THE DEBATE ON SPANKING SILLY? — UPDATE

Children’s Games Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)
Children’s Games by Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) (explanation here)

UPDATEvioletwisp has just posted evidence for the benefits of spanking. Supposedly, we Christians have not provided any evident for benefits of spanking. Since I never could figure out exactly what it was, I could say the same about ‘s “technique”. I did not even think to ask for evidence. Evidence of what?

However, that’s not why I gave up debating the issue with her.  My motivation was more along these lines. Imagine you are dealing with an ISIS terrorist, and that terrorist asks you to justify your continued existence.

Here is where is coming from. Here is her reply to my comment here.

violetwisp on February 12, 2017 at 10:41 am said:

“she disapproves of punishing children when they do wrong”
Absolutely! It’s all about setting good examples and providing reasons for behaving in a socialised manner that takes other people’s feelings into consideration. Children aren’t ‘bad’, they’re just clueless about social norms until they’re sufficiently exposed to them, and they have some very basic needs (food, rest, comfort) that people tend to overlook before they launch into counter-productive disciplining. And this is one of the reasons I can never accept the Christian god in the Bible – the caricature of this omniscient being punishing its puny creation is disgusting.

is not an ISIS terrorist, but obviously does not think highly of Christianity. I think it suffices to say she prefers Christians were extinct. There is no point in debating your right to exist and that’s the debate wants.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST

Do you want to get an inkling of the sheer silliness of some people’s priorities? May I suggest you read some of the comments to this post:  punishing children. Because the conversation is so shallow, I have given up commenting.

Our ancestors struggled to survive. Pain was unavoidable, but we are so modern. For us spanking is suppose to be a grand tragedy, but it really isn’t. We still cannot completely avoid pain.

  • There is still physical pain. Many a cancer patient can tell you about that, and bullies still beat up their classmates.
  • There is emotional pain. Failed dreams. Rejection. A death in the family.

What is different from the past? I am not certain anything really is different. I just know people who insist upon making an issue of spanking apparently don’t have anything better to do.

What follows are some are some of the comments from punishing children.

So My Neighbor Spanks His Child? That’s A Problem?

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 6:57 pm said:

“Some how, some way parents must teach a child to control that belief, that pride in self. More often than not before a child can learn the rewards of loving someone, that child must learn the consequences of arrogance the hard way.”

Where’s the ‘must’? Tildeb and Barry, quite calmly, have explained to you how gentle, reasonable techniques have more positive effects on children. If you take issue with that, show me somewhere (there must be somewhere, right?) that can demonstrate the positive effects of parenting with violence (or physical discipline, if you prefer). I can’t find any.

  • @violetwisp

    What Tildeb’s and Barry’s explanation comes down to is that they have different ways of punishing a disobedient child. The notion that we can always reason with a wilful two-year old is just silly. Moreover, as you suggested your post, “punishing children”, ANY form of punishment can be taken to an extreme.

    The Bible doesn’t actually say we have to spank a child, and that is not really the issue. What the Bible says is that if we punish a child because we love that child and want them to behave, that child will survive and be better off for it.

    What you are preoccupied with is making other parents raise their children your way. Not my problem.

    Spanking a child is not child abuse. Child neglect — not teaching a child to behave — is child abuse. Yet silly people get all worked up about spanking. That’s mostly just because a few people lose it, and the bruises and broken bones are obvious. Newspapers can get vivid photos, and the virtue signalers can tell us how they would never do that.
    🙄

    I suppose stupid sadists also beat kids half to death, but abuse has many other, more subtle forms.

    Neglect, I suspect is a more common problem. Even if we feed, cloth, and shelter a child, we still neglect that child if we don’t teach that child self-discipline. Until we learn self-discipline, we are not prepared for life.

Setting The Threshold Way Too Low

violetwisp on February 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm said:

This is a real problem. I hate seeing children needlessly suffering. There’s simply no reason to approach parenting with any form of violence.

  • When people speak of virtue signaling and a bleeding heart, what are they talking about? It is about setting the threshold for suffering so low it is an insult to those who actually are suffering.

    You want to understand pain? Then study the matter. Imagine being skinned alive. Then compare that to a spanking.

So what is the point of this post? Is it about spanking? No. It is about priorities. People were spanking their children long before recorded history. That does not make it right, but spanking works well. Perfectly? No. For example, as an child grows older spanking becomes a greater offense to his or her dignity, and we are big into self-esteem these days. Hence, spanking is not as popular as once was.  Still, children need to be disciplined.

So what is the point of this post? If you are represented by a politician who advocates a complete ban of spanking, even within the privacy of your neighbors’ homes, you have my sincere pity. That man has no sense of proportion. What he wants is simply a waste of government resources and a good example of why government should not be in the businesses of educating our children. Do we need such busybodies sticking their noses into our lives and interfering with how we raise our children? No.

When we vote, we need to vote for someone who can tell the difference between a real crime and a difference of opinion that offends his ever so superior sensibilities.

IS IT REALLY ABOUT BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN OR A SUCKER?

heartbleedHere some questions for commenters. What’s the issue? We have a bunch of Americans prominently displaying their hearts decrying the xenophobia of their fellow Americans. They tell us all about what the Good Samaritan and Jesus would do. What is their interpretation of scripture?  Apparently, they want open borders.

Those with their hearts prominently displayed excuse their position by pointing to the needs of the immigrants. They say nothing about the needs of America. After all, are we not a rich country? Are we not a nation of immigrants? How could open borders be a problem?

  • What makes immigration today different from the past BEFORE we had a BIG GOVERNMENT with humongous health, education, and welfare programs?
  • Are there reasonable alternatives? Can we help the world’s poor without bringing everyone and his uncle to the United States?
  • What are those with their hearts prominently displayed for all to see getting out of all those dirt poor immigrants coming to the United States. That is, are their motives as pure as they pretend?
  • What are the people opposed to unfettered immigration more scared of? Is it  immigrants or out-of-control government?
  • With respect to immigration, do Americans have any legitimate right to control immigration? That is, do non-citizens and citizen have equal rights under our Constitution?
  • How did we get into this silly mess?

Are you under the delusion that the men in black robes are always just? Do you think the lawyers who lead our nation are always thinking of our best interests? Read this =>Protecting consumers from swindlers

No. It not related to the subject at hand. It is just a great example of how professional politicians have rigged the system to line the pockets of their buddies.

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IN DECLINE

preamble to the constitutionDo I hate the US Catholic Bishops? No. Do I think they are especially bad people? No.  Nevertheless, I think their stance on immigration is stupidly immoral. What is their stance? See for yourself: Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform.

How did I come across the statement the US Catholic Bishops made on immigration. A commenter (here) cited them as some kind of authority and posted a link. I replied (here). Here is the gist of what I said.

The Democratic Party advocates open borders; it just calls it something else. You pointed to a naive front group like the US Catholic Bishops. At the same time those bishops are suppose to be fighting against the killing of babies, abortion, they are working to guarantee Democrat victories at the polls. I don’t have to mock the authority of those men. They do it themselves.

What the US Catholic Bishops want is effectively a second immigration amnesty. SECOND immigration amnesty. We need a second one because the last one worked so well? For whom?

We have always had controlled immigration into this country. Now it is far more difficult. What is different now? People can travel more easily, of course, but what is crucial is our health, education, and welfare programs. Need I say the obvious? Democrats are eager to use these programs to buy the votes of gullible immigrants. (from here)

The US Catholic Bishops have a similar stance with respect to refugees. That is, they disliked President Trump’s Executive Order halting immigration from seven nations that are currently ungovernable. The US Catholic Bishops’ statement on the executive order is available at this post: US Catholic Bishops Publicly Shame President Trump Today At Church by Silence of Mind.

Disgusted, I commented that too. Here is the gist of what I said in my first comment.

What do we call people who substitute weeping emotion for rational thought? Helen Thomas, a White House reporter, ironically invented the expression when she told us how much her heart bleeds.

It is an unfortunate fact of life, but lots of clerics are bleeding hearts. Europe is being overrun by people who do not have any use for democracy. Once their government collapses, where are the Europeans supposed to go? Here? Why would want more brainless fools? Don’t we have enough already?

Seriously, when you play chess, to win you have to think 4 – 5 moves ahead. If we accept millions of refugees, I agree that solves the immediate problem. We have already put who even knows how many such people on welfare, and we are still not bankrupt. Just the same, if we keep accepting refugees and putting them on welfare, the consequences are readily predictable. The refugees will vote Democrat. That’s why the Democrats want them.

In addition, because our taxes are already out of sight because of expensive heath, education, and welfare programs, absorbing endless refugees will just cause our economy will fold up and close shop. We will also become a multilingual nation, a tower of Babel (That’s why the European Union never had a chance.). The collapse will be complete when our government becomes tyrannical. That is the only way it will be able to maintain order. If you have any doubts about the tyrannical part, consider all the disruptions the Democrats are causing Trump. The jackasses are deliberately trying to make the country ungovernable, and they think that is a smart move. The Nazis did the same sort of thing to the Weimar Republic.
🙄 (from here)

The US Catholic Bishops are ignoring the teachings of the Bible.  What is our basic problem? We don’t love each other enough, right? Does putting on a big show that supposedly shows how much we care solve that problem? No. Does overloading our health, education, and welfare systems solve that problem? No. Does electing a bunch of Democrats solve that problem? No. Does creating a situation that is guaranteed to foment immense social strife solve that problem? No.

Here is the other comment I left behind.

Hypocrites, people who only pretend to be highly and even perfectly moral, cannot make a constitutional republic work. The reason is simple enough. They won’t truly abide by the constitution. They will only make the pretense that that is what they are doing. Meanwhile, they will accuse their opponents of every damned thing they can imagine.

Still, the proof of their duplicity comes from their own lips. It is they, to excuse their lies, who call the Constitution a “living document”. With those two words they render the Constitution meaningless, and they think themselves clever. Yet with those two words they also expose the proof of all their own lies. (from here)

The modern Democratic Party and many in the Republican Party engage in legalism.  Like the Pharisees of old, they supposedly uphold a complex legalistic code. This code they tell us is quite honorable, but unlike the nonsense the Pharisees taught their lie can be easily seen. Their code is living; it conforms to the politics of the moment.  As they say, IT IS ALIVE! It is in truth a dishonorable monstrosity.

Should we help refugees from war zones? Of course, we should, but destroying our own culture and almost deliberately sowing social strife into our society will not help anyone. It just spreads the problems the refugees are trying to flee. Don’t we already have enough trouble getting along with each other? Isn’t adding bunches and bunches of poorly educated refugees, many accustomed to violence, like adding fuel to a fire?

Here is the order President Donald Trump issued: EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES. As you read it, consider what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8. It explicitly authorizes Congress to control immigration policy. Effectively, the Federal Government (unless a Republican is in office) has plenary power over immigration policy.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (from here)

Therefore, the only question before a court should be whether Congress has authorized the president to deny restrict travel to our nation from nations that are deemed threats. In fact, since the president’s primary job is commander-in-chief, doesn’t he have that responsibility already?

So what did the Ninth Circuit Court decide when the Trump administration appealed to it and asked it to stay District Court Judge James L. Robart’s order which had ruled Trump’s unconstitutional and effectively revoked it.  The Ninth Circuit Court let Robart’s order stand.  See Motion for Stay of an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding. Why? Here are a couple of examples of the ridiculous logic.

  • Foreigners have 5th Amendment rights. Effectively, using such logic, foreigners have the right to enter the United States any time they want to do so. We may as well call them citizens.
  • Foreigners have 1st Amendment rights. Does that mean foreigners have freedom of assembly in the United States. Why don’t we just lay out the welcome mat for foreign armies? Congress has in the past favored immigration from certain nations over others. Why? We shared a similar cultural heritage, including religious heritage. Commonsense, now seemingly in short supply, dictates that immigration from such nations would be less disruptive.

So, do foreigners, foreigners who are not even in our country, have rights under our Constitution? Well, the Framers made it explicitly clear whose rights they wrote OUR Constitution to protect.  See the Preamble at the beginning of this post.

This is not just bad law. It is insane. Those judges need to be removed from the bench. This decision is legal malpractice. If the judges on the Supreme Court don’t have enough good sense to overturn such blatant BS, God help us.  Hopefully, our new Attorney General will take the case over and devise a successful strategy.

Other Views